No distortion necessary, you change your argument when facts counter your quite specific claims.Really as my identity here is known and you have no links to yourself or your work. Something I always find a bit suspect when someone in a photography forum does not link to examples of their work.

As if anyone has a reason to give a damn what you think of them. Heaping one more irrelevancy on top of all your other ones is simply a lame attempt to distract from the glaring truth, being that you have no grasp of the issues. So go ahead and stew in your suspicions and your sanctimony. You have nothing to contribute.

The argument being made by the photographer that these people deserved what happened to them or that they gave tacit permission because they left their blinds open is akin to the rapist saying the woman wanted it or deserved it because of the way she was dressed.

What counts as far as the court is concerned is what his lawyer is saying, which is that it was within his rights to take those photographs. The court will decide if it was. But the way both sides are approaching this seems to have more to do with commerce and the misappropriation of identity than invasion of privacy, per se. Apparently New York State's lack of an explicit right to privacy law means that this may not be the precedent-setting privacy case it could have been.

At this point, I expect the judge to dismiss the "use of image for trade without consent" claim, the law seems pretty clear there (though I admit I have not read the NYS cases cited by Svenson, but the doctrine is pretty similar in all the states). I also would expect the judge to dismiss the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, though he may give the Fosters leave to amend the claim if they can demonstatate they can allege some additional facts to demonstrate actual extreme distress. The Foster's response to Svenson's motion to dismiss should be available online in a day or two, I'm curious to see what they come back with.

The Fosters have filed their response to Svenson's motion to dismiss (https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASeFiledDocsDetail?county_code=xt9gpfpw338g4rtP5397Ig%3D%3D&txtIndexNo=6U4i1Qy2a2pyt2dKizViFg%3D%3D&showMenu=no&isPreRji=N, document no. 41). The weakness of the opposition is that it sidesteps Svenson's argument that works of art do not fall within the amibt of the "unauthorized use of likeness" statue because sale of an artwork is not a use in "commerce or trade," and also does not respond to the argument that the Fosters have not alleged any actual facts showing "extreme emotional distress" (yes, they obviously are pissed as hell, but that is not the same thing). The Foster's lawyer keeps hammering the outrage card by repeated references to a "half-naked little girl" and attacking Svenson, but a motion to dismiss focuses on whether or not the complaint states a cognizable legal claim, not whether the defendant's conduct was oppobrious. The real legal issue here is whether the judge will rule on a strict reading of the law; if so, I believe Svenson should win the motion to dismiss. However, since the Fosters likely will be given leave to file an amended complaint, I believe he will issue a prelimary injunction to simply because Svenson's conduct was so abhorrent (the peeping Tom aspect of the case).

The parts of the law that Fosters's lawyers have chosen as the basis of their suit certainly don't seem to be on their side, but that leaves us back at the point of choice. It doesn't sound as if they even attempted to bring in reasonable expectation of privacy. On the other hand, I'm beginning to wonder whether or not there is such a thing in New York City.

It's my opinion that shooting people without their consent is intrusion, however you write it or whatever the law might state. The law has little to do with morality, and probably makes a pig's ass of it when it tries to get involved in moral matters.

The only reason some people on forums say otherwise, condone this blatant intrusion, is that they hope to get their jollies doing exactly the same sort of spying. It's bloody pathetic, exploitative and in very poor taste. And no, that has little to do with the victims being dressed, half-naked or anything like that: they should simply be left in peace - by right.

It's a part of the amateur snapper psyche, especially the amateur/art one, that everyone is fair game. They are not - if you want to shoot people, go hire models.

That, however, doesn't exclude people from taking the common sense route and drawing their blinds if they are about to do anything compromising. Both parties carry a responsibility. I can tell you this: if I found someone had been spying on my wife, I'd settle the matter out of court, and not with money. I feel a hatred for these types of photographer. They besmirch all of us; just like pornographers, of which this is but a thin, chicken-livered branch.

I hope you mean without their consent at their homes, otherwise we are gonna have to burn a lot of negatives from photographers that are very well regarded.

I quote myself:

"The only reason some people on forums say otherwise, condone this blatant intrusion, is that they hope to get their jollies doing exactly the same sort of spying. It's bloody pathetic, exploitative and in very poor taste. And no, that has little to do with the victims being dressed, half-naked or anything like that: they should simply be left in peace - by right."

Once again, i think you should have said inside their homes otherwise every street photographer since Cartier-Bresson is a creep? I don't think they carried a bunch of releases in the backpack in those days and made everyone sign it, otherwise the photos would have been very different (and boring).Most of the work by Garry Winogrand and Lee Friedlander can be considered intrusive, calling that "bloody pathetic" is just wrong.

I do believe that street photography does sort of require some degree of spying on people, big deal, google and facebook are giving the really private info to the government.

"The only reason some people on forums say otherwise, condone this blatant intrusion, is that they hope to get their jollies doing exactly the same sort of spying. It's bloody pathetic, exploitative and in very poor taste. And no, that has little to do with the victims being dressed, half-naked or anything like that: they should simply be left in peace - by right."

Raul, you really had to bring up a 3 month old, and dead, conversation?

The difference between the scenarios is that on the street there is no expectation of privacy. Some street photographers do engage in some pretty questionable tactics and produce some less than tasteful imagery, but it's OK because they are in a public space.

The photographer, in this instance, prevailed because New York State does not have invasion of privacy laws that most other, civilised, jurisdictions have. That's the only reason he prevailed.

Raul, you really had to bring up a 3 month old, and dead, conversation?

The difference between the scenarios is that on the street there is no expectation of privacy. Some street photographers do engage in some pretty questionable tactics and produce some less than tasteful imagery, but it's OK because they are in a public space.

The photographer, in this instance, prevailed because New York State does not have invasion of privacy laws that most other, civilised, jurisdictions have. That's the only reason he prevailed.

Once again, i think you should have said inside their homes otherwise every street photographer since Cartier-Bresson is a creep? I don't think they carried a bunch of releases in the backpack in those days and made everyone sign it, otherwise the photos would have been very different (and boring).Most of the work by Garry Winogrand and Lee Friedlander can be considered intrusive, calling that "bloody pathetic" is just wrong.

I do believe that street photography does sort of require some degree of spying on people, big deal, google and facebook are giving the really private info to the government.

I don't think so at all.

People like HC-B had a mission; they were mainly working for 'socially concerned' magazines and the political points that they were making were in tune with the plight of their subjects. If anything, I'd imagine that HC-B et al. would have had a lot of co-operation from their subjects.

However, when similar - not the same - things began to be the province of Wino and pals, then no, there wasn't anything political or altruistic at play: it was an obsession with catching the oddballs, the same breed of people as Arbus found so captivating. I see it as manifestation of a deeper mental problem - why else, had there been real, legitimate purpose, would so many films have been left undeveloped... it was an illness, a compulsion to be there on the street, in the thick of others kinetic energies, an attempt to cling to an illusion of having a life of one's own by the simple expedient of intruding into the lives of those random others one didn't even know. A substitute for a contented personal reality, then.

If anything, rather than mild outrage, I feel a gentle sorrow for them.

“Most of the work by Garry Winogrand and Lee Friedlander can be considered intrusive, calling that "bloody pathetic" is just wrong.”

No; again, I was referring to the concept of intrusion, not to the photographic results which can, obviously, be quite stunning on their own merits. Exactly as a beautifully applied stab to the heart, that neither damages nor breaks any ribs, can be considered a wondrous piece of surgery, but fatally murderous nonetheless.

Exactly as a beautifully applied stab to the heart, that neither damages nor breaks any ribs, can be considered a wondrous piece of surgery, but fatally murderous nonetheless.

Quote

"It is the secret of the artist that he does his work so superlatively well that we all but forget to ask what his work was supposed to be, for sheer admiration of the way he did it." p594 The Story of Art

The early work, which is so especially admired, was not made "working for 'socially concerned' magazines".

I don't happen to share that poster's view on the matter; I certainly don't take it as gospel.

In fact, I don't even accept there was any measurable difference between his (HC-B's) photographic oeuvres: I think he brought exactly the same ethic and eye to everything; how could he humanly do otherwise? Split-personality? I don't think so. I don't recall any pundit saying or writing to the effect that HC-B wanted to copy anyone else or to be anyone else than the photographer and artist that he already was.